EWS can’t seek relaxations like SC, ST, OBC: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that aspirants belonging to the economically weaker section (EWS) cannot claim parity with the SC/ST/OBC categories for seeking age relaxation or enhanced attempts in relation to direct recruitment or employment under the Central Government.
A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan observed that the deprivation faced by EWS individuals was not comparable to caste-based discrimination, and the policy not to extend age and attempt relaxation to the EWS category was not “mala fide, arbitrary or unconstitutional” merely because it accorded different relaxations to different reserved categories.
The bench passed the judgment while dismissing a petition by certain individuals belonging to the EWS category seeking the same relaxation in the upper age limit and number of attempts as available to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in direct recruitment or employment under the Central Government.
Under UPSC’s notice of examination dated February 19, 2019, candidates belonging to SC/ST categories were allowed age relaxation of up to a maximum of five years and candidates belonging to the OBC category were allowed age relaxation of up to a maximum of three years.
It also provided certain relaxation to them with respect to the maximum number of attempts.
In the judgment passed on April 16, the court observed that since the handicaps faced by socially backward classes and economically deprived classes were not the same, different ancillary concessions and relaxations ought to be provided to the two categories.
It explained that the hardship faced by individuals under the EWS category arose from a lack of financial resources, whereas the disadvantages associated with SC, ST, and OBC categories were rooted in “deep and long-standing social and educational backwardness”.
“These groups have suffered discrimination and ostracism for generations, solely on account of their caste, such a disadvantage is structural and enduring. Caste, unlike economic status, is not a variable; it is fixed by birth and cannot be changed,” the court said. It said a person born into a disadvantaged caste continues to face its consequences throughout life. Economic status, on the other hand, is fluid. It can change over time, within years or across generations. A person may move in or out of poverty depending on circumstances, the court added.
“For this reason, the deprivation faced by EWS individuals is not comparable to caste-based discrimination, which carries to some extent a long-lasting social stigma. The EWS category cannot claim automatic parity with SC/ST/OBC in ancillary considerations such as age relaxation or enhanced attempts,” it concluded.
The court further observed that the legislature was conscious of the plight of candidates belonging to the EWS category and, therefore, introduced reservations for them by enacting the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019.
However, the “additional relaxations” sought by the petitioners entailed evaluation of several parameters, “ranging from administrative feasibility and financial implications to the potential impact on existing reservation frameworks”, which was within the purview of the legislature and the executive.
It also said that the mere fact that certain states or Union Territories (UTs) have chosen to extend such relaxations does not impose any corresponding obligation upon the central Government to adopt an identical approach.
“In such circumstances, the assailed policy decision falls squarely outside the permissible scope of judicial review and warrants no interference by this court. In our considered opinion, the petitioners have failed to make out any case to issue a writ of mandamus to grant age relaxation or increase the number of attempts granted to members of the EWS category.
“Further, no case has been made out to quash Office Memorandum dated 31.01.2019, Notice of Examination dated 19.02.2019, FAQs dated 19.09.2022 or the C.S.E. 2024 Notification,” the court ruled.
It also said that the constitutional framework itself recognised a distinction between the EWS and SC/ST/OBC categories and the mere grant of certain concessions to one category did not amount to discrimination once admittedly the reservation has been granted to all of them.
